Did Ron Paul Win Iowa, Nevada, Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri?
- Thread starter deprave
- Start date
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
The stoner guy is awesome. Plus he's playing old skool video games.
deprave
New Member
its kane the guy that used to have a red mask
Shaggy Green
Member
If Ron Paul could win...I would think he would have done so by now with the amount of times he has run...foolish to think otherwise!
deprave
New Member
not really....it wouldn't be the first time this happened..additionally..the first time he ran was for third party and over 20 years ago so not sure you can really count that...
You didn't call me out on anything. That is your misguided perception. You're too much of a pussy to discuss the issues so make things up.
Oh sure we need to justify ourselves for you? An idiot like you says others dont have independent thoughts. You don't have credibility.
it's quite simple. YOU accused Ron Paul supporters in your troll posts. YOU prove it.
You did not list the causes. Again you ignored the actual cause and just listed symptoms that happened after the fact. You continue to avoid directly answering my points because you're a pussy.
All you did was list events that threw gasoline on the fire. None of the things you mentioned were the cause.
Yes I did. Reread the post. Only an imbecile would say I didn't.
Not deregulated you complete jackass. Regulated. They put new rules in that bypassed the free market.
again you didn't cite anything that caused the crisis. All you said happened afterwards.
They were not rated safe investments you moron. They were insured. Period. Lending institutions ALWAYS followed their own lending rules when it comes to risk/reward. Since when do lending institutions ASK if a loan is good or not, They do their own research, something YOU dont do.
The point which you continually miss, as well as missing a chromosome, is what you said although may be factual had nothing to do with the CAUSE of the crash.
And? So?
That's cause you're an idiot who trolls. You completely ignored the cause of making bad loans in the first place and now you make things up about copying Ron Paul because the person you worked for Obama is a horrible president who backs failed policies. Just like you.
LMAO Keep trying. Because of your inability to read and comprehend, don't blame it on me. Only a complete ignore and deny twat like you would continue to avoid the issue. Don't make bad loans in the first place. Don't allow government to manipulate the free market and we avoid the housing crash.
You made that up again because you're too much of a pussy to discuss the facts. Instead you make things up.
You really are an idiot. What difference does it make if you are working and cannot purchase a quality product and not working much and cannot afford a quality product. Ignore that again too. Please dont discuss this and continue to ignore and deny.
Again GDP is meaning less. Government can dig a ditch and hire another to fill it back up, GDP rises and nothing is accomplished. Fools like you always ignore at what cost yet again. The cost is to the tax payers. WE foot the bill you mindless drone. We spend spend our own money more efficiently. The people get bang for their buck. But keep quoting incorrect government terminology. As dumb as you are you'll do it again.
All you've shown is you're a troll pussy who ignores the issues.
Again tell me why this is all of a sudden a good thing for lenders to do? Tell me why something that was avoided like the plague by businesses in it for profit are all of a sudden going to make these loans?
Make loans to
1. Zero to low down payment
2. bad history of repayment
3. Not enough income to make the payments
They don't you complete fool because there is no profit in it. When you regulate the industry by making rules and REWARDING lenders with special favors when they make those loans you have a regulated catastrophe all CAUSED by big government intervention.
Again I'll say this and you ignore it please. So what you're saying is we should make these same type of loans again but without the doing what you mentioned on those two previous bills you call deregulations and we'll be prosperous. Gee why hasn't anyone else thought of this and implemented it? All these smart people running things and no one has thought of this as a way to sell the foreclosures? Could it be because it would fail like it always has.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Reagan ran 3 times and he was old as fuck by the time he got elected. Foolish to think otherwise.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
Too bad Ronald Reagan didn't lose a fourth time.
You're full of shit. He admitted in a post he was going to troll. The only reason you allow it is you don't like Ron Paul period. You got no balls.
You shouldn't be a mod if you play favorites. That's the type of bullshit people are fighting right now. Ignore the rules when you see fit right? Your buddies can do it but others can't. The mod power has gone to that little pointed head of yours.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
The irony being that all of your posts are full of ridicule and ad hominem attacks yet your posts are still here...
How foolish is it to keep supporting the status quo? How is business as usual working? You're not the brightest bulb are you? As a matter of fact I doubt the light is even on.
The irony of you not getting the point yet still yapping. At least my posts are backed up with related facts about the topic and not trolling to get a reaction. Funny how there is no mention from you about the obvious announced troll post. oh the irony.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
my cat's breath smells like cat food.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
Have you tried breath mints? They now come in catnip flavor.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
I have proven it, with your help of course. Your failure to be able to cite one instance where you disagree with anything Ron Paul did in 23 years as a congressman is proof that you are not thinking for yourself.
No no. With out the laws I cited the financial crisis would have been impossible. It couldn't have happened. The bad loans couldn't have been given out in the first place and the banks wouldn't have started going under. That makes it the cause.
No they didn't. They REMOVED the government regulators ability to make sure Wall St was selling safe products in favor of letting the free market sort it self out. Then they REMOVED the law that stopped banks from investing in risky Wall St products. You clearly don't understand these laws. I tried to explain it to you in the simplest words I could, but I that wasn't good enough.
No that is factually incorrect. The commodities futures modernization act passed in 2000, Gramm-Leech-Bliley passed in 98 or 99. The crash happened in 2008.
With out those two laws the crash would not have been possible. The banks would not have had the ability to give out these bad loans nor would they have the ability to invest in credit default swaps.
This comes back to you not even being able to comprehend what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the "insurance". Wall ST was allowed to regulate itself because of CFMA, this gave them the ability to give these swaps (the "insurance") an AAA rating. Because these bundled mortgages were backed by AAA "insurance", the banks were able to sell off all these bad loans. The banks couldn't have even given out these bad loans in the first place without CFMA, because without that law they wouldn't have been able to "insure" and sell them off. The banks would have been held financially liable for people who couldn't pay their mortgages. When they were no longer held liable for these mortgages and could just make their profits by giving out a mortgages to anyone and then selling the mortgage, that is what caused the housing crisis. It's the root cause of the whole thing. With out CFMA this whole thing wouldn't have been possible.
Is that simple enough for you or do you need a coloring book?
That is correct. But CFMA eliminated the risk because they were no longer liable for the results of inability to pay. That's why they were able to give out all these bad loans.
Actually I explained it in detail several times now. You are either incapable of understanding it or ignoring it.
Yes, we footed the bill. Yes, we spent money we didn't have. But the result was unprecedented prosperity, the peak of the American economy. GDP had recovered, if you don't think that is an accurate measure, fine. Unemployment went down, the poor class shrunk while the middle class grew, American purchasing power was at an all time high, and we had prosperity in every way. By what possible metric can you claim the economy during WW2 was in bad shape?
And that was only possible due the banks ability to sell off these loans thanks to deregulation in the CFMA.
Before the CFMA the SEC and CFTC regulated swaps. The CFMA DEREGULATED the market, removing the governments ability to monitor that market in favor of letting the free market decide for itself. That's what deregulation is. Regulations are what we had BEFORE the CFMA when the SEC and CFTC were in charge of monitoring that market. When you REMOVE the government's ability to monitor a market it's called deregulation, not regulation.
I don't know how the hell you came up with that conclusion. It shows your complete inability to comprehend what I'm saying. I'm saying we should put back the regulations which protected us from this predatory capitalism. Putting back those regulations would insure these loans can't be given out again.
That's the exact opposite of saying "we should make these same type of loans again".
Without these two laws these loans would have been impossible to give out in the first place! I'm not sure why this is so complicated for you.
Glass-Steagal successfully prevented banking instability for 70 years. How you can claim that is failing is beyond me. It's only when we got rid of it by passing Gramm-Leech-Bliley that we ran into trouble.
Show proof of that. Another thing you make up because you're too weak minded. Keep trying and lying.
Once again you're incorrect. The loans were made to help people get housing that otherwise couldn't afford it. The other things you cite had nothing to do with the making of the actual bad loans to unqualified people.
because none of that is about the cause. because you do not have the ability to think beyond what a simple child does you cannot get it.
Since when does the government need to regulate the qualifications of mortgages? Government said if you lower the standards, which will be needed in order to make the loans, you'll be covered. That's regulation.
I ate an apple today and it rained. Eating apples causes rain.
So what you're saying is the regulations allowed banks to make bad loans. Except you still don't get it. Who made it all possible. That's the funny thing. If you knew that you would have already mentioned it. I won't say because i want you to look more foolish that you already do when you prattle on with your bullshit.
At least you are agreeing with me that the loans should not have been made. No loans no crash. Good boy you're learning.
No that didnt allow them to regulate themselves you idiot. It allowed them to fail and get bailed out. They regulate themselves through profit and loss and the fear of failure. In other words the free market.
The only thing simple is that piece of flesh between your ears. The regulations passed allowed failure and bailouts.
Good for you, at least you are recognizing regulations were involved instead of the free market. They were not able to give out the loans unless an entity got involved. The biggest roadblock to our financial recovery and I bet you don't know what it is and what they did to enable the crash.
Always lying again aren't you. I even said I understood where you were going with your long winded explanation but it wasn't the cause.
You're one the biggest fools I've met. You'll say anything. Again what could the public purchase quality wise? keep ignoring that FACT you idiot.
Here's the scenario of the typical day. Joe wakes up and decides to go eat breakfast. He can't drive because he has to save gas as its being rationed. No biggie his tires are worn and are expensive since rubber is hard to find also as its needed for the war effort. So he puts on his coat and walks to the restaurant. The coats is made of shoudy material since he cannot afford the nicer coats as cotton is hard to come by. Joe sits down and orders his meal of powered eggs with powered milk. Gee aint life grand.
Pull your head out of your ass for once and ask people who lived during that era. You couldn't purchase much quality wise.
Like I said, you're an idiot who doesn't look to the cause you look at symptoms that throw fuel on the fire instead.
Don't make the bad loans period. Since when have unqualified people repaid bad loans to the point it is profitable? Answer that you piece of shit and I'll declare you correct.
Okay finally you're at least saying don't give those loans out. Took you long enough. But you don't understand the difference between regulating the free market and unregulating. When yoy take away the ability to fail as well as take away safeguards and tell the lenders "you're covered" that is regulation and that isn't the free market.
The loans were made possible for one reason. It is the same reason and the same thing that has caused ever single boom and bust in the last 100 years. It is the same answer as to the number one obstacle to overcome if we ever want to have long lasting prosperity. I will be amazed if you knew the answer to this. I will shit turtles for a week if you can answer this one. Please try and answer this. Without the correct answer you'll never have a clue on the business cycle.
Incorrect. You mentioned it earlier by accident when you agreed with me. Don't make the bad loans to unqualified people. It has never worked.
No one said it was failing. That's another a lie of yours because you dont get it. It wasn't involved in the cause. It didn't start the process of failure. it aided it no doubt.
You are finally coming around, since you are saying to not make the loans, that's good. One disagreement is on terminology of regulation and deregulation.
If you can answer what I wrote in the last bolded section that would solve a lot.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
SOME of the bad loans were made for this reason, sure. But the reason ALL of the bad loans could be made is because the corporation issuing the mortgage could then sell the mortgage to Wall St, eliminating their risk in the event the mortgage defaulted. The reason they were able to do this was because we removed government regulations and allowed Wall St to regulate itself with the CFMA.
People were buying 2 or 3 and flipping them. That had absolutely nothing to do with the government programs helping low income people people move into a starter house. It had everything to do with lending institutions not having financial liability for the mortgages they were giving out.
Even those government programs to get people into starter homes were subject to this. Those housing programs were intended to put low income families into starter homes on 30 year and even 50 year fixed rate mortgages. At the time those laws were made that's how it was done. But a couple years after that, lending institutions figured out they could put literally anyone into a home on an adjustable rate subprime loan. And yes, fannie and freddy were just as guilty as every other bank in doing this. But in no way was it limited to government programs. EVERY lender in the country public or private was doing the same thing.
The common denominator in all of this, from private banks to government backed loans, was that the companies issuing the loans were not held financially responsible for the results of the loans because they were selling these mortgages to Wall St. Yes, the government programs were guilty of this. But it was not limited to them. It was just as bad with private banks. And none of this would have been possible without the banks ability to sell of these bad loans to Wall St. That was 100% caused by the CFMA and nothing else. 100%.
Even if you remove all the government programs out of the equation, the crisis would have still happened because ALL lenders were issuing these loans. The government programs were only part of the problem. But none of this would have been possible with the CFMA. That's why it's a root cause of the problem. Simply saying "no it wasn't!" does not counter that what I've said is indisputable fact. Not my opinion, fact.
If you think that then you failed to comprehend the facts I put in front of you. I explained in detail how these bad loans were profitable and possible. If you didn't get that, well I can't force you to learn. I explained it 3 or 4 times.
You're calling me names while I'm citing specific laws and explaining exactly what those laws did, so look in the mirror.
You're not understanding any of this. The government never did regulate the qualifications for mortgages. The rated the safety of them as investments when they were bought up by Wall St and sold on the exchange.
More specifically, they rated the safety of the swaps that were backing them. When this market got deregulation and the safety ratings were now done by Wall St instead of the SEC, Wall St just rated all the bundles as AAA rated investments. This made them extremely easy to sell on the market. At that point banks could make profits by selling whatever loan they could get someone to sign regardless of their ability to pay to Wall st. That's why banks were giving out bad loans. They could make a profit just by getting someone to sign them and then selling the loans to Wall St. They were not being held financially liable for defaults. Understand?
I can't make you less stupid or ignorant. I give up.
Yes. That is a proven fact.
I have indeed explained what made it all possible. You just aren't understanding for some reason. What made that possible was the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which took deregulated the swap ratings allowing Wall St to self rate the swaps.
You are a simpleton of the highest order. Seriously. I've been saying this whole time these were terrible loans that should have never been given out in the first place. If the only part of this you're understanding is that these loans were bad, then I probably shouldn't even bother trying to explain this too you anymore. It's clearly too complicated for you.
As I said, simpleton of the highest order. There was no fear of failure because the free market allowed them to just scam everyone.
"
- Mindful of the concentration of default risk as one of the causes of the S&L crisis, regulators initially found CDS's ability to disperse default risk attractive.[SUP][47][/SUP] In 2000, credit default swaps became largely exempt from regulation by both theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). TheCommodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which was also responsible for theEnron loophole,[SUP][8][/SUP] specifically stated that CDSs are neither futures nor securities and so are outside the remit of the SEC and CFTC"
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150524493789807&set=a.137458029806.111105.11455644806&type=1&ref=nf
Snoop Dogg's Facebook page!
Snoop Dogg's Facebook page!
Attachments
No. The GOP would NEVER nominate the following types of people into a general election. African American, Female, Atheist, Agnostic, Muslim, Openly Gay, Anti-Corporate and Anti-War. Being Paul is Anti-War the GOP base, who will actually decide who wins the nomination, would never allow Paul in. And being Paul has already stated he will not run under another party he won't be on any ballots. And write-in's during the general are counted but not certified until after a winner is announced so the idea of writing-in a Paul vote is meaningless. Both parties are corrupt and it's not fixable in most of our lifetimes. One of the only HONEST and SANE people in congress is Bernie Sanders and hopefully he and Elizabeth Warren will run in 2016 because other than those two there are no candidates I know of who will bring positive "change."